Having said this, why should someone who believes in traditional Buddhist teachings be forced to pay for an abortion through their tax dollars?

It is not so clear. While it is true that if a monk causes an abortion after the 19th week, it is a parajika, prior to the 19th week it is not.

As far as paying for abortions. It is interesting you mention abortion, but not war.

The fact is, that your belief that abortion is wrong is only a belief, and it is not shared by others.

We do not pay taxes based on what personally believe. I don't like the fact that Christians get massive federal subsidies for their charter schools, but our taxes get spent on that too.

Basically, you are entitled to believe in whatever you like, but you are not entitled to force your religious beliefs on others. It is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment to do so.

Some argue that to abort a life interferes with the ripening of the karma of one about to take rebirth.
But one would also have to concede that such interruption is also the result of the karma of the one taking rebirth.

Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Profile Picture: "The Fo Ming (Buddha Bright) Monk"
People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.

I cannot follow you, my love,
You cannot follow me.
I am the distance you put between
All of the moments that we will be.
You know who I am,
You've stared at the sun,
Well I am the one who loves
Changing from nothing to one.
Sometimes I need you naked,
Sometimes I need you wild,
I need you to carry my children in
And I need you to kill a child.
You know who I am
If you should ever track me down
I will surrender there
And I will leave with you one…

“If one destroys an embryo inside a woman by making her take poison, one is guilty of 2 sins – the act [of killing] and its associated elements“

Buddhism doesn’t do “sins”.
Since this quote is an English language translation of a Chinese translation from Sanskrit, I’d be interested in seeing the original wording interpreted by someone who is a reader of Sanskrit.

Actions of body, speech, and mind are either conducive to the cessation of suffering, or they aren’t. They carry no weight on their own, but must be applied to the various conditions which arise.

Yes, of course it is better to not cause injury to any living being or to encourage it. If one has taken those precepts, as my teacher pointed out during a question & answer session regarding precepts, then having an abortion is regarded as a violation of those precepts. But this doesn’t mean those precepts apply to everyone, which is why people should think heavily before taking lay precepts, and definitely before being ordained. I can certainly support a person’s right to choose abortion without urging them to have one.

Anyway, legal abortions aren’t done by giving the woman poison (European belladonna). There is no “heartbeat at the moment of conception”.

And if killing living things was never allowed, I’m not sure how we could permit vaccines for the Coronavirus!!

Profile Picture: "The Fo Ming (Buddha Bright) Monk"
People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.

Whether abortion is legal or not, women will continue to seek abortions. Where it is outlawed, or where access to abortion is restricted, women’s lives are placed in danger. So, one either chooses to understand that women need to be able to make this choice on their own, and wrestle with their own conscience, or keep dying because of illegal and botched abortions performed in back ally clinics. It’s more of a public health issue than anything else. And all arguments against abortion are religious in origin, none are based in science.

If all you want is for the government to stay out of abortion, why should taxpayers fund abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, like all the major 2020 Democratic presidential candidates propose? I didn't have doubts about the Democratic Party until recently, when it became the official position to support repealing the Hyde amendment.

This comment went unanswered, but it's worth picking up on, because it's completely wrong.

It is not the position of any major democratic presidential candidate to have taxpayers fund *all* abortions through all nine months of pregnancy, because that would be against the settled law of the land. There are exceptions to this, notably around situations where the health of the mother is endangered. The Hyde amendment prohibits use of federal funds to pay for abortions except for in situations where the pregnancy is a result of incest or rape, or it endangers the health of the mother. (The exact terms vary from time to time depending on exactly what language is re-enacted.) And if a government wishes not to re-enact the Hyde amendment, that's not necessarily wrong. The government of the US is supposed to be a secular government. The arguments presented against the use of abortion are generally religious arguments. From time to time people try to re-frame them as secular moral arguments, but this is almost always done in bad faith, as the people making those arguments had previously made religions arguments against it.

Now from a purely secular perspective, there's a good argument for allowing women access to abortion. A ton of evidence shows that (a) from a cost-benefit perspective, it improves women's lives and livelihoods; and (b) making abortion illegal just results in women seeking more dangerous, illegal abortions. Moreover (c) the opponents of abortion also fight tooth and nail to prevent any federal or state money being spent on the children once they're born, which again shows that they're discussing in bad faith when they claim that this is about the welfare of the children and the health of the mother, and (d) there is a good argument that the ultimate moral responsibility rests with the woman.

I also don't believe for a minute that you "didn't have doubts about the Democratic Party until recently". Please take your misleading talking points elsewhere.

Having said this, why should someone who believes in traditional Buddhist teachings be forced to pay for an abortion through their tax dollars?

For the same reason you are forced to pay for a medical intervention to remove any other group of cells from a human body.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Perhaps the answer isn't as simple as getting all minds to perceive the value of life from the same point of view. I don't see why that need be contested. Rather if we accept the variety then the right to choose based on that variety puts a premium on personal choice. I imagine if women had more choice and less pressure regarding what choice they make, a greater percentages of best outcomes will occur for all life.

I suspect most of the participants in the thread are men... just sayin.

Most are claiming to follow Buddhist ideals.

Some treat their goldfish with more respect than they do with human life.

And whats with this collection of cells bullshit. Lets pretend that that's all they are..

It's like let's pretend that just because those cells appear to the human eye under microscope as just a bunch of cells, we shall ignore the DNA , and ignore the fact that they are part of our human development.

People who dismiss the reality of the situation and just refer to it as a bunch of cells is just wrong and misleading.

How do people choose to ignore any human connection with the first four cells of progression to a fully formed human being.

The mind is there , the DNA is there and the Karma is there. What more do you want.

Buddhist are expected to protect and foster life , not figure out angles to work around destroying life.

If you are a woman and are wanting to abort, in some societies you are given the safe option.
If you choose , realize you are making the choice for another sentient being.

Asd a man i would always support any one i got pregnant , for life...been there done that ...If the woman wants an abortion in the end it is her body and her choice.

I would take the time to explain to her that she is deciding to do with the human life growing in her womb...her womb.

with half my DNA and half her human DNA.

again laws are man made.. laws were made at one time that as lo9ng as you planted a flag on some heathen's land all the resource are yours because you will teach them the bible and they shall be saved by Christ and should be grateful.

Even some European countries made laws that allowed for human life to become slaves...people in North America had pieces of paper that declared they owned this human being..were those laws correct. People believed they were justified. Even in Canada we had slave owners.

I suspect most of the participants in the thread are men... just sayin.

Yes, I've often wondered how many men - Buddhist or not - who are so concerned about their tax dollars and "Human life" will offer to raise an unwanted child in order to prevent an abortion?

thank you for being a good person who thinks with compassion.

I realize some woman just need to have it done, rape or incest and what not. They feel the child will ruin their life.

i'm glad i'm a man, in this instance and does not have to suffer the consequence of abortion.

Or do we? It's a lot to ask of a woman...my stance on it that is...

Are there Karmic breaks..like lets give them a break and let them terminate human life.

Karma.
then of course karma is intent...so if you bring up a child and teach them that abortion is a good thing to do , and your government makes it clear it's ok ...well there goes the bad intent out the window.

I look to the masters for advice. real advice.

where is it...people twist buddhist ideals to suit their private agendas.

hypocrisy and honesty are at odds with each here.

and to be honest i cannot make an honest judgement on if i was a woman and was raped by my father what would i do.
'cause i'm not a woman.

I knew a woman who had an abortion, she did it for financial reasons, and continued living with the father of the aborted fetus.

I never mentioned anything i posted here, but chanted hours for her life. I offered her my time and chanting without telling her .

The topic is fertile for growth in areas not even related to abortion.

thinking about life and what we are and what we do to each other is always a good thing.

As the Ninth Khalkha Jetsun Dhampa taught us, thinking about things is meditation.

again laws are man made.. laws were made at one time that as lo9ng as you planted a flag on some heathen's land all the resource are yours because you will teach them the bible and they shall be saved by Christ and should be grateful.

Whether abortion is legal or not, women will continue to seek abortions. Where it is outlawed, or where access to abortion is restricted, women’s lives are placed in danger. So, one either chooses to understand that women need to be able to make this choice on their own, and wrestle with their own conscience, or keep dying because of illegal and botched abortions performed in back ally clinics. It’s more of a public health issue than anything else. And all arguments against abortion are religious in origin, none are based in science.

If all you want is for the government to stay out of abortion, why should taxpayers fund abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, like all the major 2020 Democratic presidential candidates propose? I didn't have doubts about the Democratic Party until recently, when it became the official position to support repealing the Hyde amendment.

This comment went unanswered, but it's worth picking up on, because it's completely wrong.

It is not the position of any major democratic presidential candidate to have taxpayers fund *all* abortions through all nine months of pregnancy, because that would be against the settled law of the land. There are exceptions to this, notably around situations where the health of the mother is endangered. The Hyde amendment prohibits use of federal funds to pay for abortions except for in situations where the pregnancy is a result of incest or rape, or it endangers the health of the mother. (The exact terms vary from time to time depending on exactly what language is re-enacted.) And if a government wishes not to re-enact the Hyde amendment, that's not necessarily wrong. The government of the US is supposed to be a secular government. The arguments presented against the use of abortion are generally religious arguments. From time to time people try to re-frame them as secular moral arguments, but this is almost always done in bad faith, as the people making those arguments had previously made religions arguments against it.

Now from a purely secular perspective, there's a good argument for allowing women access to abortion. A ton of evidence shows that (a) from a cost-benefit perspective, it improves women's lives and livelihoods; and (b) making abortion illegal just results in women seeking more dangerous, illegal abortions. Moreover (c) the opponents of abortion also fight tooth and nail to prevent any federal or state money being spent on the children once they're born, which again shows that they're discussing in bad faith when they claim that this is about the welfare of the children and the health of the mother, and (d) there is a good argument that the ultimate moral responsibility rests with the woman.

I also don't believe for a minute that you "didn't have doubts about the Democratic Party until recently". Please take your misleading talking points elsewhere.

Worth noting here, generally US opponents of abortion also oppose the things that would make abortion less common. Strong social welfare systems and public education, including education on contraception. This isn’t true across the board, but I’ve found it to be generally accurate.

"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

again laws are man made.. laws were made at one time that as lo9ng as you planted a flag on some heathen's land all the resource are yours because you will teach them the bible and they shall be saved by Christ and should be grateful.

And whats with this collection of cells bullshit. Lets pretend that that's all they are..

Until an embryo is capable of independent existence, it is no different to any other collection of cells in the body (like a cancer or an organ, for example).

Even you and I are nothing other than a collection of cells dependent on a million different factors for our continued existence (including people choosing whether we live or die).

As for being the only true (Scottish) Buddhist here... One would think that if one is a Buddhist, then they would put aside their personal opinions and sentimentality, and consider the teachings in the Vianaya as the ultimate guide. Unless of course (for you) Buddhism is whatever fits your particular present world view.

But I can understand all the confusion, it is a complicated matter after all, so here is a simple flow chart for all of us here to understand:

pro choice.jpg (71.84 KiB) Viewed 570 times

Last edited by Grigoris on Thu Mar 26, 2020 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Opposing abortion personally and politically are two different animals. Especially if one lives in the US. The question is not simply opposition to abortion, but whether one supports policies which ultimately lessen the need for it. This being the case, it's easy to see that it is quite a grey area once we depart from simply opposing the act on a personal level.

"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."